social capital and early childhood development evidence from rural india wendy janssens washington,...
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Social Capital and Social Capital and Early Childhood DevelopmentEarly Childhood Development
Evidence from Rural IndiaEvidence from Rural India
Wendy JanssensWashington, 20 May 2004
![Page 2: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
IntroductionIntroduction
• Background
• Methodology
• Child outcomes
• Conclusion & further research
![Page 3: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Social capital and child Social capital and child developmentdevelopment
• Individual level social capital
• Community level social capital
• Social capital and child outcomes– e.g. Runyan et al. (1998), Braatz & Putnam (1998), Willms &
Somers (2001)
![Page 4: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
HypothesesHypotheses
Programme
Knowledge Collective action
Child outcomes
![Page 5: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Externalities in programme Externalities in programme villages?villages?
Programme
Knowledge Collective action
Child outcomes in non-participating households
![Page 6: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Child outcomesChild outcomes
• Preschool enrolment
• School enrolment
• Immunization coverage
• Health and hygiene practices
![Page 7: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Description of the programmeDescription of the programme
• Context: State of Bihar
• The Mahila Samakhya programme
• Objectives
• Activities e.g.:– training on literacy, health, women’s status– savings and credit groups– informal preschool/school construction
![Page 8: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Membership in the programmeMembership in the programmeProgramme villages
MS Members
Non-members
Control villages
Differences between
MS and two comparison
groups: Scheduled Castes 38.9 21.4 19.3 (+) ** Muslim 9.2 11.9 19.5 n.s. Income quintile 1.3 1.6 1.5 (--) *** Household education 2.8 3.1 3.1 (--) * Female education 1.6 1.9 1.9 (--) ** Dependency ratio 0.8 0.7 0.6 (+) ***
• The difference between non-members is never significant at 10% level or less
• The difference between programme villages and control villages never significant at 10% level or less.
![Page 9: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Sample selectionSample selection• Sample region
• Sample size and selection:
– 75 programme villages (1500 hh)• 10 participating households (“Members”)• 10 non-participating households (“Non-members”)
– 30 control villages (600 hh)• 20 control households (“Control group”)
• Selection criteria for programme blocks
![Page 10: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Sample selectionSample selection
Programme villages
Control villages
Difference
1991 block: % of SC population 15.9 15.2 (+) *
1991 block: % of female literacy 16.3 18.5 (-) ***
1991 village: % of SC population 18.7 17.2 (+) **
1991 village: % of female literacy 14.3 13.5 --
2003 village: mean village income 3.0 3.1 (-) ***
Distance to nearest town 14.8 24.0 (-) *** Distance to health centre 2.2 2.2 --
% villages with: Preschool 63.3 25.6 (+) *** Primary school 85.5 88.3 -- Middle school 24.3 24.5 -- High school 5.9 3.3 --
![Page 11: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Data collectionData collection
• Household interviews
• Group interviews / village interviews
• Mahila Samakhya data
• Secondary data
![Page 12: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Mahila Samakhya and Mahila Samakhya and educationeducation
• Parental attitudes towards education
• Parental participation in school activities
![Page 13: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Parental attitudes towards educationParental attitudes towards education
05
10152025303540
It is each family'sown decision
whether to sendtheir children to
school or not. Youshould not
interfere with that.
Sending girls toschool is a waste
of time and moneybecause they will
have to stay in thehouse anyway.
Young childrenunder 5 do notlearn much by
playing with eachother. To acquireskills it is betterthat they help inthe household.
% t
ha
t a
gre
es
MS members
Non-members
Control
![Page 14: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Parental participation in Parental participation in school activitiesschool activities
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
PTA Schoolactivities
Primaryschool
construction
Preschoolconstruction
% MS members
Non-members
Control
![Page 15: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Child outcomes (1)Child outcomes (1)
• Preschool enrolment (3 - 5 years olds)
• School enrolment (6 - 13 year olds)
![Page 16: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Preschool enrolment by agePreschool enrolment by age
0102030405060708090
100
3 4 5 age
% MS members
Non-members
Control group
![Page 17: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Explanatory variablesExplanatory variables• Child characteristics
– Sex– Age
• Household characteristics– Caste, religion– Household and female education– Income– Female head of household– Household size and dependency ratio
• Programme characteristics– Member of Mahila Samakhya– Programme village
• Community characteristics– Number of preschools (schools, distance to health center)– District dummies– Block characteristics (selection criteria)
![Page 18: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Preschool enrolmentPreschool enrolmentPreschool enrolment (all hh) Probit s.e.
Child characteristicsSex .246 .156
Age .254 .084***
Household characteristicsMuslim -.671 .397*
Female head of household -.837 .384***
Household size .044 .027*
Dependency ratio .332 .123***
Programme variablesMember of MS (instrumented) 3.372 1.640**
MS village .945 .323***
Community variablesNumber of preschools .744 .141***
Sitamarhi district 1.633 .318***
Darbhanga district -.095 .335
Number of observations 964
*: p<0.10, **: p<0.05, ***: p<0.01
![Page 19: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
School enrolment by genderSchool enrolment by gender
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
girls 6-13 boy 6-13
%MS members
Non-members
Control group
![Page 20: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
School enrolment by casteSchool enrolment by caste
0102030405060708090
100
SC/ST Otherbackward
castes
Generalcastes
Minorities(Muslims)
MS members
Non-members
Control group
![Page 21: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
School enrolmentSchool enrolmentPrimary / middle school enrolment Probit s.e.
Child characteristics Sex -.084 .125
Age .108 .035***
Preschool .171 .175
Household characteristics
Scheduled Castes -.514 .297*
Other Backward Castes -.501 .254*
Household education .097 .045**
Female education .035 .112
Income .108 .063*
Household size -.029 .033
Programme variables
Member of MS (instrumented) 1.060 .357***
MS village .054 .141
Community variables
Number of government primary schools -.162 .101
Number of private primary schools -.484 .224**
Sitamarhi district .084 .195
Darbhanga district -.148 .198
Number of observations 2383
![Page 22: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Primary / middle school enrolment Only GIRLS Only SC
Child characteristicsSex -.104 .150Age .080 .047* .077 .044*
Household characteristics
Scheduled Castes -.874 .3756**Other Backward Castes -.782 .329**Household education .474 .167*** .564 .183***Female education 1.382 .695** 2.211 .822***Income .021 .088 .299 .082***Household size -.079 .029*** -.094 .059
Programme variables
Member of MS (instrumented) .590 .416 .567 .601MS village .379 .183** .637 .252**
Community variables
Number of private primary schools -.681 .227*** -.813 .340**Sitamarhi district .146 .249 .006 .259Darbhanga district -.166 .229 -.444 .318
Number of observations 1085 639
![Page 23: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
Child outcomes (2)Child outcomes (2)
• Immunization coverage (0 - 13 year olds):– polio, tuberculosis, diphtheria, measles
• Health and hygiene practices (household):– prevalence and treatment of diarrhea
![Page 24: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
Immunization coverageImmunization coverage
0
1020
30
4050
60
70
8090
100
Polio Tuberculosis Diphtheria Measles
% MS members
Non-members
Control group
![Page 25: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
ImmunizationImmunizationDependent variable: Diphtheria s.e. Only SC s.e.
Child characteristics Sex -.167 .071** -.305 .131**
Age -.030 .011*** -.031 .027
Household characteristics
Scheduled Castes -.571 .253**
Other Backward Castes -.576 .235**
Muslim -.868 .280*** -2.976 .477***
Household education .118 .044*** .3449 .187*
Female education .239 .081*** 1.353 .806*
Income
Female head of household -.130 .352 -1.513 .805*
Programme variables
Member of MS (instrumented) 1.056 .310*** .574 .401
MS village .276 .187 .888 .403**
Community variables
Sitamarhi district .269 .316 .123 .556
Darbhanga district -.539 .381 -.976 .496*
Number of observations 4113 1206
![Page 26: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
Summary immunizationSummary immunization
Total Total girls
Total boys
SC total
SC girls
SC boys
Membership * ** -- ** ** * Polio
MS village -- -- -- -- * --
Membership *** *** ** -- -- -- Diphtheria
MS village -- -- -- ** *** --
Membership *** *** *** -- -- -- Tuberculosis
MS village * -- ** ** ** **
MS village *** *** ** -- -- -- Measles
MS village -- -- -- ** *** **
![Page 27: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
Prevalence of diarrhea in the Prevalence of diarrhea in the last monthlast month
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
MS members Non-members
Control
Both adults andchildren
Only children
Only adults
No diarrhea
![Page 28: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
Treatment of diarrheaTreatment of diarrhea
MS membersReduced orspecial food
ORT
Medecines
No treatment
Non-members Control group
![Page 29: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
Conclusion (1)Conclusion (1)Evidence suggests positive impact of the
programme on participants:
• increased awareness of parents• increased participation in education• increased child outcomes (preschool,
school, immunization, incidence of diarrhea)
![Page 30: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
Conclusion (2)Conclusion (2)
External effects of the programme on non-participating households seem substantial:
• increased participation in school activities
• increased child outcomes (preschool, school, immunization) especially for girls and children from Scheduled Castes
![Page 31: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
Conclusion (3)Conclusion (3)
Importance of good comparison groups in programme evaluation
in order to avoid:
- underestimation of effect on participants- underestimation of externalities
![Page 32: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
Further researchFurther research
• Other measures of child outcomes
• Mechanisms:– Processes that lead to external effects (role of social
networks in knowledge transmission)– Dynamics of collective action
![Page 33: Social Capital and Early Childhood Development Evidence from Rural India Wendy Janssens Washington, 20 May 2004](https://reader036.vdocument.in/reader036/viewer/2022062518/56649e725503460f94b70fb8/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)